NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been hearing about Third Parties for a long, long time. The only one that ever seemed to have a chance was Ross Perot's ... what was the name of that party?

Anyway, I have heard two theories: 1. A Third Political Party can start from scratch and win. 2. It's better to try and win one of the two major parties to your way of thinking.

Actually, the only third party that had a chance in US politics(at least in the 20th C.) was Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Moose_Party_(United_States)) Even he didn't succeed in attaining the Presidency, though. Like Perot, he did split the Republican vote and make it easier for a Democrat to capture the White House.

Perot's Reform Party has managed to last longer as a political organization than Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party did, although how effective it is now is open to debate.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

I don't see what wonderful salve a third party is supposed to bring to representative democracy.

Just take a look at the UK's Lib Dems...

I say we bring back the ideals of George Washington, who gets classified as a Federalist but is the only U.S. President ever elected with a unanimous vote of the Electoral College. You can't beat numbers of 100%, and he did it twice, without being a part of any political party, and as a man that actually disagreed with the party movement as a whole.

If that doesn't work, we could always try resurrecting the Federalist Party. If their stances on the issues of 1783 were adopted for today, based also on the various political scales of ideology, they'd be the perfect cure for America.

I say we bring back the ideals of George Washington, who gets classified as a Federalist but is the only U.S. President ever elected with a unanimous vote of the Electoral College. You can't beat numbers of 100%, and he did it twice, without being a part of any political party, and as a man that actually disagreed with the party movement as a whole.

If that doesn't work, we could always try resurrecting the Federalist Party. If their stances on the issues of 1783 were adopted for today, based also on the various political scales of ideology, they'd be the perfect cure for America.

Depends on what the Federalist Party stood for.

I've been hearing about Third Parties for a long, long time. The only one that ever seemed to have a chance was Ross Perot's ... what was the name of that party?



Perot's attempt at election was nothing more then a ploy to make sure Bush H W didn't get real elected. The reason being was that Perot had signed a deal with Vietnam that if relations were normalized Perot would get to be Vietnam's business agent(basically a monopoly on US Vietnam trade). While Bush had told Perot that was not kosher and he was going to prevent that when relations were normalized.

Perot's attempt at election was nothing more then a ploy to make sure Bush H W didn't get real elected. The reason being was that Perot had signed a deal with Vietnam that if relations were normalized Perot would get to be Vietnam's business agent(basically a monopoly on US Vietnam trade). While Bush had told Perot that was not kosher and he was going to prevent that when relations were normalized.


You have to admit Poppy Bush helped loss the election.

A thousand points of light? Dude, get off the LSD......

I don't see what wonderful salve a third party is supposed to bring to representative democracy.

Just take a look at the UK's Lib Dems...

I think that it might be more useful to have a competitive third party rather than one that just picks up a few seats. I wouldn't call it a wonderful salve, but having more parties tends to reduce the barriers of entry into politics allowing popular new political movements a chance to affect the rule of a country.

Don't worry. Obama's Revolutionary Jihadist Ebil Communist-Muslim Alliance will soon ban elections, eliminating the need for a second party, let alone a third. FOOOOOOOORT SUMTERRR!

I don't see what wonderful salve a third party is supposed to bring to representative democracy.

Just take a look at the UK's Lib Dems...

They get a lot of votes split up over everywhere and end up not making as many seats as would accurately represent the amount of people that vote for them - it's why they've been arguing for proportional representation for years, because safe seats fuck it up for everyone.

I don't see what wonderful salve a third party is supposed to bring to representative democracy.

Just take a look at the UK's Lib Dems...
Still better than only two choices.

I don't see what wonderful salve a third party is supposed to bring to representative democracy.

Just take a look at the UK's Lib Dems...
And the Scottish Conservatives.

Well, IMO, the best method is to con the existing parties into making meaningful structural electoral reforms (e.g, approval rather than plurality) and then launch your third party.

They get a lot of votes split up over everywhere and end up not making as many seats as would accurately represent the amount of people that vote for them - it's why they've been arguing for proportional representation for years, because safe seats fuck it up for everyone.

Though if the news is to be believed, Labour's safe seats aren't looking very safe any more :eek: Personally though I'm hoping for a hung parliament, giving the Lib Dems the power to play 'kingmakers' and hopefully get some election reforms through as part of the deal

Though if the news is to be believed, Labour's safe seats aren't looking very safe any more :eek: Personally though I'm hoping for a hung parliament, giving the Lib Dems the power to play 'kingmakers' and hopefully get some election reforms through as part of the deal

That's what I'd hope too. In all reality I expect that people will forget just how awful the tories are and it'll be a landslide for them. Everything will be privatised, which will work spectacularly badly as usual, funding for everything will be cut, marginalising people, the disabled will be scapegoated as workshy skivers (this is already occuring and will almost certainly continue) and it'll take us ten years to work us out of the mire of conservatism. The lib dems just aren't -loud- enough to push the advantage they have to become a real power this election. Cameron on the other hand, is more than loud enough.

I've been hearing about Third Parties for a long, long time. The only one that ever seemed to have a chance was Ross Perot's ... what was the name of that party?

Anyway, I have heard two theories: 1. A Third Political Party can start from scratch and win. 2. It's better to try and win one of the two major parties to your way of thinking.

Interesting that you don't even mention what country you are talking about.

Anyways, the US woul definitely profit from having several other parties. A Christian Conservative one, Nader's Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Big Two. That would be a good mix-up. It would laso be interesting to see the formation of regional parties.

Interesting that you don't even mention what country you are talking about.

Anyways, the US woul definitely profit from having several other parties. A Christian Conservative one, Nader's Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Big Two. That would be a good mix-up. It would laso be interesting to see the formation of regional parties.I dunno. Five, in my experience, is dipping into the "too many" pool, much like two dips into the "too few". Best seems to be three to four.

Interesting that you don't even mention what country you are talking about.

Anyways, the US woul definitely profit from having several other parties. A Christian Conservative one, Nader's Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Big Two. That would be a good mix-up. It would laso be interesting to see the formation of regional parties.

Sorry, I get egotistical every now and then. Apologies to the rest of the English speaking world. I was considering the U.S.A. in the o.p.

I am truly intrigued by your suggestion a Regional Parties. It is my belief that one of the reasons that national third parties have failed in the U.S.A. is that there has been no lasting reason for them to stay together after an election season.

There is a "liberal-labor" party in the U.S. It is the majority of labor unions and especially those government service unions, some of whom love the worker and yet hate the job provider. There is a "conservative-business" party which is made up industries that are fair to their employees and others that exploit their workers. This is how some political parties get their "flavor".

I still have a hunch that we'll see a centrist party sometime soon.

I agree that we should have a new election system based on pharaohs and magical playing cards

its time to d.d.d.ddddual!

what was you expecting with a name like that? : P

allowing popular new political movements a chance to affect the rule of a country.

this is a good thing?

Everything will be privatised, which will work spectacularly badly as usual, funding for everything will be cut, marginalising people, the disabled will be scapegoated as workshy skivers (this is already occuring and will almost certainly continue) and it'll take us ten years to work us out of the mire of conservatism.

Gordon Brown is head of the conservative party now:confused:

I still have a hunch that we'll see a centrist party sometime soon.

Yes, that's certainly a possibility. Remember the "Mild Bunch"? The Gang of 14 who basically asked for a centrist take on filibusters in 2005? That kind of positioning, marketed well, could prove very popular.

You have to admit Poppy Bush helped loss the election.

A thousand points of light? Dude, get off the LSD......

Clinton was the superior president.

Clinton was the superior president.

Agreed. I can't say I dig his taste in women, but at least you knew the guy was capable of getting some, and that means he's got something to live for, which is a good quality in a world leader.

I still have a hunch that we'll see a centrist party sometime soon.

we've already got one. they do seem quite popular, though.

I've been hearing about Third Parties for a long, long time. The only one that ever seemed to have a chance was Ross Perot's ... what was the name of that party?

Wasnt it called the "Oh please vote for me so I can build an airport in Ft Worth Texas and have the monopoly on Mexican trade" party?
:tongue:

....and he did it twice, without being a part of any political party...
No one will get 100% again, it's not the first days.

But it would be a sensible decision to make it forbidden for anyone running for president to be a standing member of, or openly associate with any political party. Legislative branch separate, executive branch separate. And change the voting system to a preferential one. That way, elections will finally make some sense.

this is a good thing?

I guess it depends on how fond you are of the status quo.

I've been hearing about Third Parties for a long, long time. The only one that ever seemed to have a chance was Ross Perot's ... what was the name of that party?

Anyway, I have heard two theories: 1. A Third Political Party can start from scratch and win. 2. It's better to try and win one of the two major parties to your way of thinking.
better in what way?

its better to get public opinion behind whatever big policy change you have in mind then one or both of the major parties will get on the bandwagon.

this is why even though ross perot lost the election his big issue got taken up by both parties and the budget was balanced under bill clinton.

I'm not an expert in American history, but I believe that other parties (as the current ones) delivered a president.

So why can't this happen again? I have the impression that Obama is doing well, but suppose he will do some major mistakes, by instance doing some corruption, in such case there's maybe room for a third one in USA.

IMHO, two parties isn't enough, but as it is in my country with 7 - 8 parties who have an opportunity to press on the ruling, this is also not working. 3 to 4 parties would be excellent.

Wasnt it called the "Oh please vote for me so I can build an airport in Ft Worth Texas and have the monopoly on Mexican trade" party?
:tongue:

THAT'S THE ONE!!! :D

I imagine that the Clintons' say a little prayer each night, thanking God for Ross Perot, since it's likely he pulled away a big bunch of right-wingers from Bush (41).

I agree that we should have a new election system based on pharaohs and magical playing cards

its time to d.d.d.ddddual!

Considering the way humans muck up systems designed to be fair, I can almost go along with the idea.

Two-party politics is a travesty. Proportional Representation! Encourage diversity! It's what the US political system was supposed to be based upon...

I'll say this: I always thought economic conservatism and social conservatism make odd bedfellows. I suspect that most social conservatives would prefer economic liberalism if most economic liberalists weren't also socially liberal.

I'll say this: I always thought economic conservatism and social conservatism make odd bedfellows. I suspect that most social conservatives would prefer economic liberalism if most economic liberalists weren't also socially liberal.

:eek: Whut chew talkin' bout, Willis?!?!? :eek: That one hurt my head. :wink: I know I'm risking sanity in asking, but would you care to explain this statement to me, in small and easy-to-digest bits?

THAT'S THE ONE!!! :D

I imagine that the Clintons' say a little prayer each night, thanking God for Ross Perot, since it's likely he pulled away a big bunch of right-wingers from Bush (41).

Well it's a 2 way street. Nader cost Gore the presidency in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.
:(

Third parties in US history have tended to do one of four things:

1) Most commonly, be ineffective and irrelevant.

2) Effect policy shifts in the other major parties.

3) Tip elections.

4) Replace parties.

Mixed representation is probably the most important electoral reform. Majority over plurality would help as well.

A right-authoritarian party, a libertarian party, a centerist party, a lefty party, and a handful of small fringe parties would probably suit the US's political base best.

Split the Christian right off from the GOP and let them form their own US version of the CDP party - call it the Christian Republican Party (CRP).

Split the right-libertarians off the GOP and lump 'em in with the LP. Now split the LP into the moderate and far right ecomomic types. Split the progressive libertarians off from the DP and stick 'em in with the more moderate elements of the LP. Now we have a small fringe Libertarian party and a medium sized Freedom Party.

Split the neocons off the GOP and they now form a small fringe NeoCon Party

Split the DP centerists off and lump them with the remainder of the GOP, for a centerist "New Republican" party.

The remainder of the DP serves as the core for the lefty party.

That gives us 4 - Christian Republicans, Freedom, New Republicans, and Democratic.

The remaining parties remain as they are or get lumped into the big 4.

The only fair thing to do is have a runoff election if no candidate has at least 50% +1 vote.